What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

I don't know much about her, and that isn't for lack of trying. She's been on the short-list rumor mill for months now and there's just nothing about her. Say what you will about Obama, but he has over a decade of documented political philosophy easily available, including 2 books outlining his ideas about the world, one of those specifically dealing with policy issues (and another one coming). Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

Obviously political? Newsflash... it's an election. It's the epitome of politics. Everything for the last two years in this arena is "obviously political." It's politics.

Quote:

Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.

Oh, yea... an obviously political pick for gravitas. It's the usual balancing of the ticket, and now both sides have done it.

Quote:

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

If McCain has enlisted any of the people that he is good friends with, he would have immediately ceded the election to Obama. Most of them are democrats, and the few Republicans are RINOs like Grahamnesty, which would show he's willing to forgo the GOP base. And make them stay home.

Quote:

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.

I'm not sure how much we know, or will ever know, about the steps leading to this pick.

Quote:

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

Hmmmm. Good question. I guess one take on it is that he can build bridges between diverse opinions.

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

I don't know much about her, and that isn't for lack of trying. She's been on the short-list rumor mill for months now and there's just nothing about her. Say what you will about Obama, but he has over a decade of documented political philosophy easily available, including 2 books outlining his ideas about the world, one of those specifically dealing with policy issues (and another one coming). Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

Quote:

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

Food choices: Caribou and Moose burgers are everyday dinner.
Wolves must be eliminated from the landscape ( I wonder how all this goes with gods creation ...) God hates wolves and bears and nature. God only likes hunters and war and the mentally ill.

Food choices: Caribou and Moose burgers are everyday dinner.
Wolves must be eliminated from the landscape ( I wonder how all this goes with gods creation ...) God hates wolves and bears and nature. God only likes hunters and war and the mentally ill.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Dems won't bring it up. But apparently the theme for the RNC convention - and presumably the rest of the election - was going to be how "dangerously inexperienced" Obama is. I don't see how they can keep this theme now. Dems are very happy simply to talk about issues. Every election, Dems believe Americans agree with them on the issues, but Repubs succeed in instead making it about how Gore is a liar and Kerry is an elitist and Obama is inexperienced. If that is taken off the table, and it makes the media stop chattering about it, Dems will be happy.

Hillary supporters should be outraged at this shallow tactic by McCain.

I agree. In fact, I'd go as far as saying John McCain is sexist for choosing his VP based soley on her sex. It's like choosing the only black guy to be on your basketball team without even knowing if he can play based soley on his race.

Dems won't bring it up. But apparently the theme for the RNC convention - and presumably the rest of the election - was going to be how "dangerously inexperienced" Obama is. I don't see how they can keep this theme now. Dems are very happy simply to talk about issues. Every election, Dems believe Americans agree with them on the issues, but Repubs succeed in instead making it about how Gore is a liar and Kerry is an elitist and Obama is inexperienced. If that is taken off the table, and it makes the media stop chattering about it, Dems will be happy.

Good response!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamac

Bush used the US army on an imbecile (Saddam) he is still in office.

Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

I agree. In fact, I'd go as far as saying John McCain is sexist for choosing his VP based soley on her sex. It's like choosing the only black guy to be on your basketball team without even knowing if he can play based soley on his race.

Absolutely! Obama could have taken the low road by picking Hillary to hedge his bets. However this would have contrasted with his platform of " Change " on many levels.

So who's more real here? Also because of this aspect I think this will count against McSame. Something he didn't expect I'm sure.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".

Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

That's because back in 2004 some were still buying his act. As you can see in 2006 things had changed fundimentally.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".

You must have special Google that reveals how being shown to have abused one's power can be "easily deflected." Does that Google also indicate the triviality of having lied about abusing one's power? I ask because I know how the right is very adamant that lying about one's misdeeds is far worse than the misdeeds themselves.

I think it's kind of funny that you think it's now the job of every American to dutifully go Google Palin's bio to fill themselves in on the basics. I would have thought that would have been McCain's job.

But, I guess when you have political points to score, you can't waste any time with silly stuff like due diligence.

Quote:

Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

Absolutely! Obama could have taken the low road by picking Hillary to hedge his bets.

Hillary is the low road. That ought to keep the PUMAs going.

Quote:

However this would have contrasted with his platform of " Change " on many levels.

As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"

I have seen, however, a lot a thought to the effect that, in a better world, Obama ought to be a slam dunk, given the grotesque clusterfuck of recent Republican "governance."

You know, that is spot on. Obama should be up by 15 points in every state, at least.

So the reason he's not... hmmm.. it will come down to a) his whacko Alinskyite liberalism b) republican attacks c) concerns about experience d) overt racsim.

To this point, this race has not been Obama's to win, it is his to lose. I have to say, I was surprised with the bounce after Denver... I was looking for a bigger one. We'll see what Gustav and St. Paul bring, but Palin is currently rallying the GOP base in a big big big way.

As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"

Have you ever noticed that you only get the "it's all politics" religion when the right does something stupid? When the left practices politics, it seems to strike you as a sign of demonic possession.

The way you work it, the country can never be any better than the worst thing the Republicans do, because the one iron-clad rule is the liberals must never, ever be seen to in any way be superior to the right. Therefor, the worst things the Republicans do must always be declared to be business as usual, and quite typical of the left.

In other words, by your lights, the Republicans can single-handedly ratchet down what is possible and good, in America. Bush murdering babies on the White House lawn? Sure, it looks bad, but don't try to tell me it's anything out of the ordinary! Everybody does it!

Why do you hate America, again?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Have you ever noticed that you only get the "it's all politics" religion when the right does something stupid? When the left practices politics, it seems to strike you as a sign of demonic possession.

Calm down adda. You need to reread my post.

You did not see me on this board slamming Obama re:Biden as a "purely political pick." The simple fact is that this is the political realm, where people are competing for votes, so it should come as no surprise that candidates make POLITICAL decisions in the course of politics. This has nothing to do with partisan anything, and you've obviously missed my point in the hope of calling me out on something you've conjured yourself. You make it sound like I'm trying to cover for some deviant behaviour for "my side" by saying "everyone does it." There is nothing deviant or wrong about picking a veep that helps you make a better case to the voters. You are smarter than that, adda. I think you know full well what I meant.

Let me try this again. My point is regarding the stupidity of people who call out one party for making a "political pick" in the course of politics... after the other party just did the same thing. There is nothing to see here. The fact that a Prez candidate picks a person who will benefit his or her ticket should not come as some scandalous surprise. It's common fscking sense. Every cycle, in every party... Presidential candidates pick veeps that bring something to their ticket. What a huge "DUH."

As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"

A VP is supposed to balance the ticket. You know! To satisfy those people who aren't sure about new ideas and want a background of experience also.

If you aks me it's much more valid than just choosing any woman to catch what little votes you can. It's a poor addition to an already poor platform with McSame.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

A VP is supposed to balance the ticket. You know! To satisfy those people who aren't sure about new ideas and want a background of experience also.

If you aks me it's much more valid than just choosing any woman to catch what little votes you can. It's a poor addition to an already poor platform with McSame.

"just choosing any woman..."

I think it is a bit sexist how you are paying 100% attention to her gender, and not her conservative credentials. McMoron needed that MUCH more than her gender. Please be aware of how the single-minded focus on her chromosome shape is a bit of a put down, because it emphasizes a physical trait over deeds or character. That's a big no-no.

I think it is a bit sexist how you are paying 100% attention to her gender, and not her conservative credentials. McMoron needed that MUCH more than her gender. Please be aware of how the single-minded focus on her chromosome shape is a bit of a put down, because it emphasizes a physical trait over deeds or character. That's a big no-no.

As for her gender I couldn't care less except that it surrounds why McSame chose this desperate avenue.

He hopes Palin will bring exHillary votes. Nothing more. If I was a woman I'd be insulted. Even so it offends me. This was so shallow. As I've said with McSame it's all about winning. Not what's right for the country.

I can understand. The Neocons are about to lose their grip on Washington DC.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

You did not see me on this board slamming Obama re:Biden as a "purely political pick." The simple fact is that this is the political realm, where people are competing for votes, so it should come as no surprise that candidates make POLITICAL decisions in the course of politics. This has nothing to do with partisan anything, and you've obviously missed my point in the hope of calling me out on something you've conjured yourself. You make it sound like I'm trying to cover for some deviant behaviour for "my side" by saying "everyone does it." There is nothing deviant or wrong about picking a veep that helps you make a better case to the voters. You are smarter than that, adda. I think you know full well what I meant.

Let me try this again. My point is regarding the stupidity of people who call out one party for making a "political pick" in the course of politics... after the other party just did the same thing. There is nothing to see here. The fact that a Prez candidate picks a person who will benefit his or her ticket should not come as some scandalous surprise. It's common fscking sense. Every cycle, in every party... Presidential candidates pick veeps that bring something to their ticket. What a huge "DUH."

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.

Certainly there is political component to the Biden pick, but does anyone doubt that Biden could step in and do a credible job as president, if need be? Does anyone doubt that Biden brings genuine foreign policy expertise to an Obama administration? You can claim that it's merely "politics" when Obama seeks to "shore up" his foreign policy credentials, but notice it's a type of politics that hinges on his admins competency in a core aspect of governance. Palin shores up..... a demographic. There is literally no thought there to a McCain administration's ability to govern. Which is, of course, right in keeping with the last eight years.

Eight years of one of the most vacuously political administrations in American history has forced the right to pretend like there's no such thing as substantive policy, no such thing as a genuine desire to "do good", no such thing as the actual ability to use government, competently, as a tool for national betterment. There are only politics, and the deeper the right goes down the rat-hole of a fact free Rovian shit world the more strenuously they must declare that nothing more is possible or even desirable.

To mitigate the astonishing disaster of the Bush administration, it becomes necessary to declare all of American politics, all of American governance, all hope, all possibility, and all desire for something better to be stupid myths. The smart money is on ever more cynical manipulations, ever less competence, ever shriller divisions.

I wonder if most folks on the right even think McCain would be anything more than a mediocre president, at best. The things is, I don't think they really care.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.

I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh." She's spent more time in an executive capacity than Obama has, if experience is your beef.

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action.

Who she is, not what she is.

And BTW... McCain would be a mediocre president. It's just that Obama would be a socialist disaster.

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.

Certainly there is political component to the Biden pick, but does anyone doubt that Biden could step in and do a credible job as president, if need be? Does anyone doubt that Biden brings genuine foreign policy expertise to an Obama administration? You can claim that it's merely "politics" when Obama seeks to "shore up" his foreign policy credentials, but notice it's a type of politics that hinges on his admins competency in a core aspect of governance. Palin shores up..... a demographic. There is literally no thought there to a McCain administration's ability to govern. Which is, of course, right in keeping with the last eight years.

Eight years of one of the most vacuously political administrations in American history has forced the right to pretend like there's no such thing as substantive policy, no such thing as a genuine desire to "do good", no such thing as the actual ability to use government, competently, as a tool for national betterment. There are only politics, and the deeper the right goes down the rat-hole of a fact free Rovian shit world the more strenuously they must declare that nothing more is possible or even desirable.

To mitigate the astonishing disaster of the Bush administration, it becomes necessary to declare all of American politics, all of American governance, all hope, all possibility, and all desire for something better to be stupid myths. The smart money is on ever more cynical manipulations, ever less competence, ever shriller divisions.

I wonder if most folks on the right even think McCain would be anything more than a mediocre president, at best. The things is, I don't think they really care.

I agree on all points. The notion that it's " Ok " because it's what everyone does now is just stupid. America is based on better values than that. It's time we got out of this rat- hole!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh."

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action. Who she is, not what she is.

How would Palin's "perspective and values" assist a McCain administration in matters of governance? Does she show up at cabinet meetings and say "abortion bad" and McCain looks thunderstruck and says "tell me more"?

What do the Vice President's "perspective and values" have to do with running the country, beyond assisting McCain in tailoring his message to key demographics? How is that not just politics?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh." She's spent more time in an executive capacity than Obama has, if experience is your beef.

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action.

Who she is, not what she is.

Unfortunately the way I see it is that she's a hood ornament! Something to parade around to voters before the election. One wonders what she'd do if McSame wins after the election. The same relationship doesn't exist with Obama/Biden. I really don't think with Biden's experience he'd be ok with that.

As I've said before if I was a woman who cared about women's rights I'd be very offended by this dog and pony show.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I pause to wonder if you have ever thought or posted anything even remotely like that in the last seven years with regard to Dick Cheney.

I'm less interested in Dick Cheney's values, terrifying thought they may be, than in what he does. What he has been doing is plenty bad for me, without exploring the fundament of the man's psyche.

If you want to talk about Palin's "values" in the same context as Cheney, I would need to know her stance on foreign entanglements, free trade, monetary policy, taxation, energy use, immigration, etc. I would have to know if she has any interest or aptitude for addressing those issues legislatively. I could care less if she likes puppies or goes to church a lot or is a good mom or has the common touch.

"Values" are a bullshit distraction cooked-up by a Republican party whose policies are relentlessly fail.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I'm less interested in Dick Cheney's values, terrifying thought they may be, than in what he does. What he has been doing is plenty bad for me, without exploring the fundament of the man's psyche.

He's been rather terrifying in both thought and action, that much is certain.

Quote:

If you want to talk about Palin's "values" in the same context as Cheney, I would need to know her stance on foreign entanglements, free trade, monetary policy, taxation, energy use, immigration, etc. I would have to know if she has any interest or aptitude for addressing those issues legislatively.

Some of those can be addressed legislatively... by not legislating or repealing exist law. Such is her conservative position. Making a law is not the answer to every problem. I, too, want to hear more about her substantive positions on the issues you listed. And more.

Quote:

"Values" are a bullshit distraction cooked-up by a Republican party whose policies are relentlessly fail.

No, real "values" guide behaviour. Every politician, even Saint Barack, use the term "values" in their schtick. Pelosi even uses "American values" to justify wealth redistribution. Behaviour matters, as you stated about the Big Dick. "Values" is just another door-to-door, Fuller-brush style device, like "change" or "fairness" or "common sense." It's how politics is now the process of populist semantics, not simply policy execution.

He's been rather terrifying in both thought and action, that much is certain.

Agreed

Quote:

Some of those can be addressed legislatively... by not legislating or repealing exist law. Such is her conservative position. Making a law is not the answer to every problem. I, too, want to hear more about her substantive positions on the issues you listed. And more.

But to return to my original contention, to consider Palin anything more than a purely political selection, we would have to imagine that McCain, after some deliberation, decided that he needed the wise council of a political lightweight to help him understand when he might do best by doing least. I think that's kinda a stretch.

We can always ruminate on what Palin might or might not bring to the office of the Vice-Presidency. My point is that, in terms of reasonable expectations, it's hard to see what might have motivated McCain beyond short-term political gain.

Quote:

No, real "values" guide behaviour. Every politician, even Saint Barack, use the term "values" in their schtick. Pelosi even uses "American values" to justify wealth redistribution. Behaviour matters, as you stated about the Big Dick. "Values" is just another door-to-door, Fuller-brush style device, like "change" or "fairness" or "common sense." It's how politics is now the process of populist semantics, not simply policy execution.

But after the election comes governance. "Values" within the context of governance have no meaning outside of action (I think most people would agree that that's true of day-to-day life).

When someone professes "values" I have know way of knowing their degree of sincerity outside of observing how they conduct themselves-- so much so that the declaration of values is relatively worthless, to me, as an indicator of merit. Show me the action.

We've had years of an administration, and a party, which shouts its values from the roof-tops while behaving like feral pigs, so you'll forgive me if I find that term a little suspect when it comes to evaluating the mettle of a nominee.

I'll take clearly stated policy goals and a demonstrated willingness to, you know, govern. Politicing is politicing, what does Palin bring to the table beyond being suspicious of the very apparatus she is vying to become second in command of?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

We've had years of an administration, and a party, which shouts its values from the roof-tops while behaving like feral pigs, so you'll forgive me if I find that term a little suspect when it comes to evaluating the mettle of a nominee.

I think that is completely understandable. I find myself there re: the GOP as well. Bush did this to many of us on the right. Yes, he did behave consistent with the values he told us about for awhile, but the last few years have been a sell out of almost all of them. Things like smaller government. Law and order. Respect for the Constitution and civil liberties. Border security. I think every voter should be suspicious of every candidate. They are there for one thing... votes. There is no altruism in politics... anyone who believes that is a damned fool.

There is always something I wonder about in the mind of people who seek high elective office. I think it draws in people, by its very nature, that are seduced by the prospect of massive power and they sometimes are apt to see exactly how much power they have. Inside the Beltway, they call it "growing in the job."

You must have special Google that reveals how being shown to have abused one's power can be "easily deflected." Does that Google also indicate the triviality of having lied about abusing one's power? I ask because I know how the right is very adamant that lying about one's misdeeds is far worse than the misdeeds themselves.

My google search is not special. My google search tells me that the trouper that Palin tried to fire tazed a 10 year old, which is exactly what I said. Flash forward to the VP debates: Bernard Shaw, "Governor Palin did you abuse your power when you tried to have that trouper removed because of personal reasons?" Paliin, "No I had that trouper removed because he used a government issued tazer gun on a 10 year old". Who's going to win that one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

I think it's kind of funny that you think it's now the job of every American to dutifully go Google Palin's bio to fill themselves in on the basics. I would have thought that would have been McCain's job.

I expect members here that want to discuss Palin and the trouper to know the basics. Think about what you wrote though. You think voters should get their information about Palin from McCain? Are you insane? If someone is going to vote for someone I think at a minimum they should do 8 to 16 hour worth of their own research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

But, I guess when you have political points to score, you can't waste any time with silly stuff like due diligence.

As always I'm an Obama voter and vote Democrat. I'm just not Hopenotized like the rest. I see elections as strategic and have an ability to put myself on the other side of the isle. When people cry "scandal" I look to see how the other side will deflect it.